From dev-return-54764-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@phoenix.apache.org Wed Dec 5 02:44:27 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id D581C18067A for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 02:44:26 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 33286 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2018 01:44:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@phoenix.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@phoenix.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@phoenix.apache.org Received: (qmail 33256 invoked by uid 99); 5 Dec 2018 01:44:25 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2018 01:44:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7013DC21AF for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:33:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.797 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.797 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=salesforce.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yqlNMyj1R02Z for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:33:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com (mail-lf1-f65.google.com [209.85.167.65]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 7A4B3610EC for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2018 01:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id n18so13480641lfh.6 for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:33:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=salesforce.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZJQh/Ht88FhSjBAgqYNEUvY+cusXU4lVD+bRKe1CKg8=; b=PLHV1ixD4NPIc/iZiNKy7AXAbAE5F8J1hdkcPV8xn+pmoGLiXm3W7HbFtcDk96PlhZ saHwlkRxFC85xaF+8Nss4XBfoLQi043SSRjHadJObI8Vfg/TrSvX7l8dwfT1Hi7y1XzS 5yFX99ycRkRaL+gzt/F3GWian3Znvrf6Es0YQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ZJQh/Ht88FhSjBAgqYNEUvY+cusXU4lVD+bRKe1CKg8=; b=g2OB5a6YvBwlXU3YPQNo9OxgkmWQ9cwEUAZnRXfE5q2M7qjG3ZuT0f4/nBAj10lIE5 MZSFtzPSJlDat1sd1hmCl8bl43VmmEiGYYbeXCT/PjdUIN4kL9OngJnCUI4NGvGNFy8N IopqwnxkdhsFyyGnNEhgycaLOCpbjKSXwnYnoIhaSAcDXQjwO/gvIn8dn9DFFMlMwh79 UHUGQneqT85TKuufjmzywDb0gAsWDx/gd3P6OoQIXPODetAqfHzPXhF4CvQoacn/mFd+ KPU07J7dsmMg4g0SDNRH58ujHGcvASnK4taL6+B7Xa+zET292toY6TAxodfYD7rUWpe6 YTnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYAkxxuaoX1KAKMALb9PPr+g33qT2UNOmavCT428JrZRlWWoEpr Sf0GA4SIGm6m+sd2i3lw8ZQAcaJnIS4QCyUPojGMeLsO43E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XxuZdVNtEF75Heo3g2h3ygamW4aSA0gfi29tSVjkUXqcf24kkeJ2Mp9Oawtt3ov+N7TNYaKpQs4cleCE5kty4= X-Received: by 2002:a19:6e0b:: with SMTP id j11mr13872448lfc.124.1543973604864; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:33:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: "Thomas D'Silva" Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:33:13 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for java 1.7 on the 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 branches To: dev@phoenix.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004311f3057c3c5e98" --0000000000004311f3057c3c5e98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think we have reached consensus about moving these modules into a separate repo. I filed PHOENIX-5062 and PHOENIX-5063. On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:20 PM Alex Araujo wrote: > > If we really want, I bet we could get rid of most of the code we have > for PQS already and just push it into Avatica itself. Just a thought ;) > > +1. Even willing to volunteer myself here. > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:18 PM Josh Elser wrote: > > > That makes the most sense to me. > > > > If we really want, I bet we could get rid of most of the code we have > > for PQS already and just push it into Avatica itself. Just a thought ;) > > > > There are some other users of Avatica, but we are, far and away, the > > most prevalent. > > > > On 12/4/18 8:10 PM, Thomas D'Silva wrote: > > > Should we have one repo for the connectors (phoenix-flume, > phoenix-hive, > > > phoenix-kafka, phoenix-pig and phoenix-spark) > > > and a separate repo for the queryserver? > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 3:58 PM Vincent Poon > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 to another repo for connectors > > >> > > >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:27 PM James Taylor > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1. Good idea, Thomas. > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:57 PM Thomas D'Silva < > tdsilva@salesforce.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I believe we will be maintaining the 4.x branches which support > HBase > > >>> 1.2, > > >>>> 1.3 and 1.4 for a while. > > >>>> Should we think about pulling out the connectors and queryserver > into > > >>> their > > >>>> own repo similar to > > >>>> what HBase did (see > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20934 > > >> ). > > >>>> They could then have > > >>>> their own release schedule and Java support. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 6:53 AM Pedro Boado > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Well I don't count with a lot more 4.x releases - maybe I'm > > >>> wrong-headed > > >>>> . > > >>>>> For master branch and cdh6 we'd be looking at spark 2.x > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Part of the success of a project is about version stability. Not = a > > >> lot > > >>> of > > >>>>> corporate projects can afford keep upgrading to the latest > versions - > > >>>> think > > >>>>> about it, you're in production, with a few thousand lines code > > >> running > > >>>>> spark 1.6 ... And for upgrading to 4.14 you need to review all of > > >> this > > >>>>> spark code -and maybe recompile to scala 2.11 btw- . It doesn't > make > > >>>> sense. > > >>>>> Until now 4.x was pretty stable and in my opinion it should've > never > > >>> been > > >>>>> migrated to spark 2 and java 8. Minor versions should keep certai= n > > >>>>> stability in terms of dependencies. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> All these changes should've come with phoenix 5. But you're right > it > > >>>> needs > > >>>>> a sensible solution as 4.14.1 is already out and compiled with > java8. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, 23:28 Thomas D'Silva > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Spark 1.6 is really old and doesn't support the newer Datasource > v2 > > >>> api > > >>>>>> that we have been looking at integrating with. > > >>>>>> As Alex points out you will might end up having to revert a lot > > >> more > > >>>>>> commits in the future. > > >>>>>> Seems like the queryserver and phoenix-spark modules on the cdh > > >>> branch > > >>>>>> would end up diverging a lot from the standard open source branc= h. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:23 PM Alex Araujo > > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Only a downgrade to spark 1.6 ( > > >>>>>>> changes are only needed in a few IT, basically going back from > > >>>> Datasets > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>> Dataframes) and going back to Avatica 1.10 ( involving reverti= ng > > >>>>>>> PHOENIX-4755, PHOENIX-4750 and PHOENIX-4805 ). > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> We're talking about the 4.x branches, right? Doesn't seem prude= nt > > >>> to > > >>>> do > > >>>>>> it > > >>>>>>> there as down-streamers may already be relying on the newer > > >>> versions. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 4:18 PM Pedro Boado < > > >> pedro.boado@gmail.com > > >>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Thinking about typical server installation in a corporate > > >>>> environment > > >>>>>> I'd > > >>>>>>>> keep everything compatible with the same JVM version. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I've gone down the route for the cdh branch. Full JDK 7 > > >>>> compatibility > > >>>>>>>> doesn't require changes in phoenix-core. Only a downgrade to > > >>> spark > > >>>>> 1.6 > > >>>>>> ( > > >>>>>>>> changes are only needed in a few IT, basically going back from > > >>>>> Datasets > > >>>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> Dataframes) and going back to Avatica 1.10 ( involving > > >> reverting > > >>>>>>>> PHOENIX-4755, PHOENIX-4750 and PHOENIX-4805 ). > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, 18:57 Thomas D'Silva < > > >> tsilva@salesforce.com > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> We could allow individual submodules like the queryserver, or > > >>>>>>>> phoenix-spark > > >>>>>>>>> to be built with their own compiler configuration (1.8+). > > >>>>>>>>> This would allow these modules to use Java 1.8 features. I > > >>> think > > >>>>> this > > >>>>>>>> would > > >>>>>>>>> be a good compromise given that they depend on > > >>>>>>>>> features that are provided by versions of spark and avatica > > >>> that > > >>>> no > > >>>>>>>> longer > > >>>>>>>>> support Java 1.7. > > >>>>>>>>> We can still ensure phoenix-core supports Java 1.7. You would > > >>>> have > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> skip > > >>>>>>>>> building modules that require Java 1.8, WDYT? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:11 PM Jaanai Zhang < > > >>>>> cloud.poster@gmail.com > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I'd vote for keep using java7 on 4.x branches. if upgrades > > >> to > > >>>>>> java8, > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>> will impact users who want to upgrade the latest 4.x > > >>> branches. > > >>>>> they > > >>>>>>>> must > > >>>>>>>>>> consider using java8 in their running environments, maybe > > >>>> their > > >>>>>>>>> libraries > > >>>>>>>>>> do not support java8, then they have to give up to upgrade. > > >>> So > > >>>> I > > >>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>> drops support java7 is not friendly for some users. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- > > >>>>>>>>>> Jaanai Zhang > > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards! > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Pedro Boado =E4=BA=8E2018=E5=B9=B411= =E6=9C=8830=E6=97=A5=E5=91=A8=E4=BA=94 > > >> =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=886:13=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'd vote for keep compiling 4.x branches in java7. It > > >> makes > > >>>>> sense > > >>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>> it's > > >>>>>>>>>>> just a new minor release. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> It's pretty easy reverting back to spark 1.6 and also > > >>> avatica > > >>>>>>>>> dependency > > >>>>>>>>>>> could be reverted to the previous version. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 29 Nov 2018 21:41, "Thomas D'Silva" < > > >>>> tdsilva@salesforce.com > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We have traditionally followed HBase's java support (see > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://hbase.apache.org/book.html#basic.prerequisites). > > >>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>> phoenix-queryserver module has a dependency on Avatica > > >>> which > > >>>>> does > > >>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>> support Java 1.7. The phoenix-spark module depends on > > >> spark > > >>>>> 2.3.2 > > >>>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>>> also does not support Java 1.7. Do folks feel we should > > >>>>> continue > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>> provide > > >>>>>>>>>>> support Java 1.7 on the 1.x branches? > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, 18:57 Thomas D'Silva < > > >>> tdsilva@salesforce.com > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> We could allow individual submodules like the queryserver, or > > >>>>>>>> phoenix-spark > > >>>>>>>>> to be built with their own compiler configuration (1.8+). > > >>>>>>>>> This would allow these modules to use Java 1.8 features. I > > >>> think > > >>>>> this > > >>>>>>>> would > > >>>>>>>>> be a good compromise given that they depend on > > >>>>>>>>> features that are provided by versions of spark and avatica > > >>> that > > >>>> no > > >>>>>>>> longer > > >>>>>>>>> support Java 1.7. > > >>>>>>>>> We can still ensure phoenix-core supports Java 1.7. You would > > >>>> have > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>>>> skip > > >>>>>>>>> building modules that require Java 1.8, WDYT? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:11 PM Jaanai Zhang < > > >>>>> cloud.poster@gmail.com > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I'd vote for keep using java7 on 4.x branches. if upgrades > > >> to > > >>>>>> java8, > > >>>>>>> it > > >>>>>>>>>> will impact users who want to upgrade the latest 4.x > > >>> branches. > > >>>>> they > > >>>>>>>> must > > >>>>>>>>>> consider using java8 in their running environments, maybe > > >>>> their > > >>>>>>>>> libraries > > >>>>>>>>>> do not support java8, then they have to give up to upgrade. > > >>> So > > >>>> I > > >>>>>>> think > > >>>>>>>>> that > > >>>>>>>>>> drops support java7 is not friendly for some users. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- > > >>>>>>>>>> Jaanai Zhang > > >>>>>>>>>> Best regards! > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Pedro Boado =E4=BA=8E2018=E5=B9=B411= =E6=9C=8830=E6=97=A5=E5=91=A8=E4=BA=94 > > >> =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=886:13=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'd vote for keep compiling 4.x branches in java7. It > > >> makes > > >>>>> sense > > >>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>>> it's > > >>>>>>>>>>> just a new minor release. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> It's pretty easy reverting back to spark 1.6 and also > > >>> avatica > > >>>>>>>>> dependency > > >>>>>>>>>>> could be reverted to the previous version. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 29 Nov 2018 21:41, "Thomas D'Silva" < > > >>>> tdsilva@salesforce.com > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We have traditionally followed HBase's java support (see > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://hbase.apache.org/book.html#basic.prerequisites). > > >>> The > > >>>>>>>>>>> phoenix-queryserver module has a dependency on Avatica > > >>> which > > >>>>> does > > >>>>>>> not > > >>>>>>>>>>> support Java 1.7. The phoenix-spark module depends on > > >> spark > > >>>>> 2.3.2 > > >>>>>>>> which > > >>>>>>>>>>> also does not support Java 1.7. Do folks feel we should > > >>>>> continue > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>>>>>> provide > > >>>>>>>>>>> support Java 1.7 on the 1.x branches? > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > --0000000000004311f3057c3c5e98--